[openstack-dev] [doc] DocImpact vs. reno
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
Fri Dec 18 18:24:06 UTC 2015
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> Recently noticed that a new job ended up on all nova changes that was
> theoertically processing commit messages for DocImpact. It appears to be
> part of this spec -
> First, a heads up would be good. Nova burns a lot of nodes (i.e. has a
> lot of patch volume), so this just decreased everyone's CI capacity
Lana talked to infra first, specifically Josh Hesketh if my memory serves,
and I hadn't heard there would be any CI impact -- what's the root cause?
Not sure I get why this spec is part of a technical node requirement
change, so please explain more, or Josh please explain more. Then we can
dig in further. Lana's out til the new year and this is my last day for the
year too so let's see what we need to do short term and long term.
Seems especially odd when this should be a low patch volume time so help me
understand the tie-in.
> Secondly, this all seems like the wrong direction. We've got reno now,
> which is extremely useful for documenting significant changes in the
> code base that need to be reflected up. We've dropped UpgradeImpact for
> an upgrade comment in reno, which is *so* much better.
To me, reno is for release notes only, not for doc impact further than
release notes. DocImpact is for any document and for a while the number of
bugs generated in openstack-manuals were too numerous to be meaningfully
> It seems like using reno instead of commit message tags would be much
> better for everyone here.
It's more complex, let's dig in another layer.
> Sean Dague
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev